THE MEANING OF MOREH $EDEQ IN THE LIGHT OF llQTORAH*

NE of the perennial problems of Qumran research is the role O to be attributed to the figure designated Moreh (ha)$edeq. (1) This designation is commonly supposed to refer to the leader of the community whose library was discovered at Qumran, (2) or less cautiously, to the founder of the Qumran sect. (3) The Moreh $edeq plays a crucial role in the historical reconstructions supplied by modern scholars of the Second Temple period, and attempts to identify the Moreh $edeq with some concrete historical personage have not been uncommon. (4) There has even been speculation concerning possible identifications with supramundane figures such as "dying-and-rising saviors", the Messiah, or Elijah redivivus.(5) Most of these historical suggestions are intriguing and worthy of careful study, but they retain limitations in their appreciation of the figure of the Moreh $edeq due to an inadequate understanding

• This paper was originally presented beCore.the Qumran section of the Society of Biblical Literalure Annual Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia, November, 1986. The aulhor would like to express his gratitude to Professor B. Z. WACHOI.DER for his ~omments upon lhe arguments presenled herein. . (1) The term March (ha)~edeq appears in the following Qumran documenls: lQpHab 1,13; 11.2; V, 10; VII, 4; VIII,3; IX,9; XI,5 (d. 11,8); CD I, II; XX, 1,28, 32; lQpMicah X.4; 4QpPs37 III. 15 (eL II. 18). . (2) G. JEREMIAS, Der Lehrer der Gerechligkeil (Gottingen, 1963). 166; A. JAl;BERT, La nahan d'alliance dans Ie Judaisme (Paris, 1963). 117; G. VERMES. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran in Perspeclive revised edilioll (Philadelphia, 198I), 152. (3) J. T. MILlK, Ten Years of Discovery in Ihe Wilderness of Judaea (Naperville, I959) , 74, 77; A. DUPONT-SOMMER. Les ecrils esseniens decouverts pres de fa Mer Morle (Paris, 1959), pp. 62,370-371 (English lranslalion The Essene Writings from Qumran [Gloucester, 1973J, 50,359); M. HENGEL, Judaism and Hellenism (Philadelphia, 1974), 1,224; F. M. CROSS, The Ancienl Library ofQumran & Modern Biblical Siudies revised edition (Grand Rapids, 1980), 113; G. W. E. NICKELSBURG, Jewish Lilerature Between the Bible and Ihe Mishnah (Philadelphia, 1981), 123; J. J. COLLINS, The ApocaLyplic imagination (New York, 1984), pp. lIS.1I8. , (4) A convenienllist of proposed idenlifications can be found in VERMES, Dead Sea Scrolls, 160. (5) These more speculative suggestions are seldom made in current Qumran research. For a detailed summary of earlier debale, see JEREMIAS, Lehrer, 275-281. 288 JOHN C. REEVES THE of what the concept Moreh $edeq signifies. This essay will attempt Wahren)",(14) "the tr to make upon the basis of philological and literary data H conceptual Law". (16) Some sch, study of the term Moreh $edeq in the light of some recent textual phrase should not be publications, The derivation of The phrase Moreh $edeq is usually translated into English as Qumran sect has en "Teacher of Righteousness"; (6) this rendering is paralleled by the . Almost all schola German"Lehrer der Gerechtigk.eit" (7) and the French « Maitre (or ground for the contro' Docteur) de Justice I). (8). The use of this particular translation to which passage pro appears in the earliest publication of a text that later came to be name. A majority vi associated with the Qumran' corpus, the so-called Zadokile Frag­ lakemofHosea 1O,12( menls or Damascus Document. (9) A sampling of other renderings to you" (yoreh here which appear in the secondary literature includes "Righteous phrase ki nalan lakem Teacher",(IO) "Guide(s) of Righteousness",(ll) "Just Judge", (12) he gave to you the "the Legitimate Teacher", (13) "Teacher of Truth (Lehrer des interpreted as "rain"), title. That ancient v sions to a "teacher" in the translations of (6) S. SCHECHTER, Documenls of Jewish Seelaries Volume I: Fragmenis of a Vulgate of these pas Zadokile Work (Cambridge, 1910), pp. XII-XJII; R. H. CHARLES, Fragmenls of a Zadokile Work (Oxford, 1912), pp. 2-3; G. F. MOORE, The Covenanlers of Damascus: A Hilherto Unknown Sect, Harvard Theological Review (=HTR) 4 (1911), 334, 337f£.; C. RABIN, The Zadokile Documenls (Oxford, 19582), 2; P. R. DAVIES, The Damascus Covenanl: An Inlerpretation of lhe "Damascus Document" (Sheifield, 1983), 233; G. (14) L. GINZBERG, Eit VERMES. The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Harmondsworlh, 1975'), 97 (cf. 67). 302 (=An Unknown Jewis; (7) W. BACHER, 'Zu Schechlers neueslem Geniza-Funde, Zeilschrifl fiir hebriiische (15) J. L. TEICHER, 1 Bibl;'ographie (= ZHB) 15 (1911), 22; E. MEYER, Die Gemeinde des neues Bundes im Sec! of Ebioniles, Journal 0/ Lande Damaskus: eine jiidische Schrifl aus der 'Seleukidenzeil, Abhandlung der Noles 011 a Teacher and a 1 preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaflen, Phil.-hisl. Klass 9 (Berlin, 1919), 13; 'leacher" in L. H. SCHIFFMJ L. ROST, Die Damaskusschrifl neu bearbeitel (Berlin, 1933),3; JEREMIAS, Lehrer, 315; and "wahre Lehrer" in G. I O. SCHWARZ, Der ersle Teil der Damaskusschrifl und das Alie Teslamenl (Diesl, 1965), (16) T. H. GASTER, T pp. 5-6. (17) R. MEYER, Mele (8) I. LEVI, Un ecrif sadduceen anlerieur ii la deslruclion du Temple, Revue des Volume du COllgres Geneoe eludes juiaes (= REJ) 61 (1911), 173; M. J. LAGRANGE, La secle juive de la Nouvelle 239; J. WEINGREEN, The 1 Alliance au pays de Damas, Revue biMique (= RB) 21 (1912),215, 324ff.; A. MICHEL, Le Semitic Sludies (=JSS) 6 (: MaUre de Juslice d'apres les documenls de la Mer Marie, la lilleralure apocryphe el 1976], 113) .. rabbinique (Avignon, 1954); J. CARMIGNAC, Noles sur les Pesharlm, Revue de Qumran (18) H. W. WOLFF" I (=RQ) 3 (I 961-62),529-533; A.-M. DENIS, Les themes de connaissance dans Ie documenl 1969), pp. 75-76 suggests th de Damas (Louvain, 1967), pp.54-56; J. STARCKY, Les Mallres de Justice et la Qumran sed and had no co, chronologie de Qumran, in M. DELCOR (ed.), Qumran, sa piete, sa lhe%gie el son milieu to explain it. Similarly, F (Paris, 1978), pp. 249-256. (19)Uvl, REJ 61 (19 (9) SCHECHTER, Fragmenls (see n. 6), Most subsequenl commentators appear 15 (1911),23; GINZBERG, Sei to follow SCHECHTER in their renderings of the Litle, , Qumran Studies (Oxford, I ~ (10) A. BOCHLER, Schechter's "Jewish Seelaries", Jewish Quarlerly Review II.S. 3 Qumran Sec/arian LileralUl (1912-13), 471; M. BURROWS, The Conlenls and Significance ofthe Manuscripls, Biblical Temple Period (Philadelphi; Archaeologist (=BA) 11 (1948), 58; D. N. FREEDMAN, The "House of Absalom" in lhe (20) E. SELLIN, Das ' Habakkuk Scroll [lQpH 5,8-11J, Bullelin of the American Schools of Orienlal Research, 167; MICHEL, Maitre, 266; . 114 (1949), 11; W. H. BROWNLEE, The Midrash Pesher of 1fabaklwk (Missoula, 1979), (Paris, 1957), 59. 46; CROSS, Ancienl Library, 113 and passim. (21) ROST, Damaskw (11) I. RABINOWITZ, The Guides of Righteousness, Velus Teslamenluin 8 (1958), Ancienl Library, 148 n. 82; , 393-403. moreh ~edeq is apparently de (12) M. R. LEHMANN, Talmudic Malerial Relaling 10 lhe Dead Sea Scrolls, RQ 1 and Malachi 3,23-24. See (1958-59), 400. passages '(I. MAIIKON [ed.], (13) MILIK, Ten Years, 76. composuil Daniel ai-ifiimis, THE MEANING OF MOREH $EDEQ 289 This essay will attempt Wahren)", (14) "the true teacher", (15) and "true exponent of the terary data a conceptual Law". (16) Some scholars even go so far as to enjoin that the of some recent textual phrase should not be translated at all. (17) The derivation of the term Moreh $edeq as employed by the nslated into English as Qumran sect has engendered only slightly less disagreement. i'ng is paralleled by the Almost all scholars are united in recognizing a biblical back­ the French (, Maitre (or ground for the controversial phrase, (18) but diverge in opinion as ; particular translation to which passage provided the impetus for the coining of this t that later came to be name. A majority view either the phrase 'ad yabo' weyoreh ~edeq o-called Zadokile Frag­ lakem of Hosea 10, 12 (1 9) "until he comes and teaches righteousness .ing of other renderings to you" (yoreh here often understood to mean "rain"), or the e includes "Righteous phrase ki nalan lakem 'elha-moreh li!iedaqah of Joel 2,23 (20) "for .(11) "Just Judge", (12) he gave to you the righteous teacher" (moreh here also often of Truth (Lehrer des interpreted as "rain"), or both combined, (21) as the genesis of the title. That ancient witnesses understood these passages as allu­ sions to a "teacher" or "teaching activity" is made manifest in the translations offered by the Targum, Symmachus, and the s Volume I: Fragmenls of a Vulgate of these passages. Other commentators call attention l. CHARLES, Fragmenls of a 'e Cooenanlers of Damascus: A '-ITR) 4 (1911), 334, 337ff.; C. '. R. DAVIES; The Damascus 11" (Sheffield, 1983), 233; G. (14) L. GINZBERG, Eine unbekannle jiidische Sek/e ErsLer Teil (New York, 1922), orth, 197(2), 97 (cr. 67). 302 (=An Unknown Jewish Secl [New York, 1976],211). ,nde, Zeilschrifl fur hebriiische (15) J, L. TEICHER, The Dead Sea Scrolls-Documenls of Ihe Jewish-Christian emeinde des neues Bundes im Sect of Ebioniles, Journal of Jewish SIt/dies (=JJS) 2 (1951), 97; A. M. HONEYMAN, eukiden,zeil, Abhandlung der Noles' on a Teacher and a Book, JJS 4 (1953), 131. Note Lhe translations "corred Klass 9 (Berlin, 1919), 13; teacher" in L. H. SCHIFFMAN, Sedarian Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Chico, 1983), 7 :3),3; JEREMIAS, Lehrer, 315; and "wahre Lehrer" in G. MOLIN, Die Sohne des Lichls (Wien, 19(4),82 and passim. Aile Teslamenl (Diest, 1965), (16) T. H. GASTER, The Dead Sea Scrip/ures (Garden City, 19763), XII and 555. (17) R. MEYER, Melchisedek von Jerusalem und Moresedek von Qumran, in ruclion du Temple, Revue des Volume du Congres Geneve (Supplemenls 10 Velus Teslamenlum XV) (Leiden, 1966), La secle juive de la Nouvelle 239; J. WEINGREEN, The Tille Moreh $e4el) (Teacher of Righleousness?), Journal of 2),215, 324ft.; A. MICHEL, Le Semilie Studies (=JSS) 6 (1961), 174 (=idem, From Bible 10 Mishnah [Manchest.er, Ie, la lilLeralure apocryphe el 1976], lJ3). ' ; Pesharim, Revue de Qumran (18) H. W. WOLH, Dodekaprophelen 2: Joel und Amos (Neukirchen-Vluyn, :onnaissance dans Ie documenl 1969), pp. 75-76 suggests that the phrase Moreh $edeq was a particular coinage or the ,es Mailres de Juslice ella Qumran sed and had no connection with the biblical passages that are often invoked )ieM, sa lheologie el son milieu to explain it. Similarly, R. MEYER, Melehisedek, 230 n. 3. (19) LEVI, REJ 61 (1911), 173 n. LAGRANGE, RB 21 (1912),215; BACHER, ZHB 'quent commentators appear 15 (1911), 23; GINZBERG, Sek/e, 314 ( 219); RABIN,Zadokile Documenls., 3; idem, Qumran Siudles (Oxford, 19(7), 120 n.\ 4; DENIS, Conna/ssance, 55-56; D. DIMANT, 'ewish Quarlerly Review n.s. 3 Qumran Sec/arian Lileralure, in M. E. STONE (ed.), Jewi.~h Wrilings of Ihe Second ceof Ihe Manuscripls, BJblicat Temple Period (Philadelphia, 1984), 505. ;,e "liouse of Absalom" in lhe (20) E. SELLIN, Das ZWillfprophelenbuch iiberselzl und erkliirl (Leipzig, 1929), I Schools of Orienlal Research 167; MICHEL, Mailre, 266; J. T. M ILlK, Dix ans de decouoerles dans Ie desert de Juda f Habakkuk (Missoula, 1979), (Paris, 1957), 59. (21) ROST, Damaskusschrift, 7; BROWNLEE, Midrash Pesher, 47-48; CROSS, Velus Teslamenlum 8 (1958), AncienfLibrary, 148 n. 82; JEREMIAS, Lehrer, pp. 312-313, The Karait.e designation moreh ~edeq is apparently derived rrom a combined exegesis or Hosea 10,12, Joel 2, 23, 10 Ihe Dead Sea Scrolls, RQ I and Malachi 3,23-24. See the commentary of DANIEL AL-QUMISi to the first two passages (1. MARKON [ed.], Commenlarius in librum duodeeim prophelarium quem composuil Daniel al-Kumissi [Jerusalem, 1957], pp. 18, 29). 290 JOHN C. REEVES THE ~ to additional biblical passages such as Isaiah 30, 20ff. (22) or Just what does "Te Deuteronomy 33,9-10. (23) Finally, arguments have been made on 12 appears to supply an the, basis of the antithetical construction moreh seqer (Isaiah 9,14; vobis iustitiam or "who Habakkuk 2, 18) "teacher of falsehood, false teacher", thus attemp­ answer only restates th€ ting to define Moreh f$edeq by means of its assumed opposite. (24) Teacher of Righteousne , All of these suggestions regarding the possible biblical derivation What indeed is the of the' designation Moreh f$edeq contain a kernel of truth, and when ted by a so-called ". considered together, provide a remarkably coherent description of "righteousness~' or "righ what the sect may have understood by this term. As long as we conjuring up images ( confine our discussion to the realm of Hebrew discourse, there is associated, with the little difficulty in apprehending the semantic range of the title guidance. (28) W as the Moreh f$edeq. It is only when we attempt to translate this concept concerned to instill a into Western, post-Christian modes of expression that misunder­ between virtue and vict standings arise. so. There is a danger I This problem is already evident in the Vulgate rendering (25) of (and for that matter the Hosea lO, 12 and Joel 2,23 mentioned above. Hosea lO,12 {'ad of the Greek philosophi yabo} weyoreh liedeq lakem) is translated cum veneril qui docebit vos to a small circle of disciI iustitiam, and Joel 2,23 (ki nalan lakem 'el ha-moreh li~edaqah) of employing words like becomes quia dedit vobis doclorem justitiae. The latter clause is, the character of the Me rendered in turn by LUTHER as " ... der euch Lehrer zur gerechtig" There is furtherrr keit gibt". (26) It is in these renderings that the familiar English , "righteousness" or "rig] "Teacher of Righteousness" (and its concomitant Western reflexes) tation placed upon thes first rears its head. No one would deny, of course, the association so-called "forensic" UI of moreh or yoreh with the idea of authoritative instruction, or for pronounced "righteous' that matter, the connection of derivatives of the stem lidq with the court of law. (30) This concept of "justice" or "rightness'. What remains puzzling is the Hebrew Bible, (31) but i possible connotation of the combined phrase "Teacher of Righ­ polemic of Paul. (32) l­ teousness" in a setting such as Joel 2,23 or the Qumran communi­ of the concept of "rig ty. Pauline theology. It i equating the notions of

(22) MOORE, HTR 4 (1911), 337; CARMIGNAC, RQ 3 (1961-62) 530. ,Note that LXX isaiah 30,20-21 curiously reverses tpe positive message of the Masoretic Text: (27) Compare F. ROSEN "and the Lord will give you the bread of afllicLion and scant water, and no longer will (1950-51), 411-412 11. 4: "Our Ihose who lead you astray (= MT morekha!) draw near to you, for your eyes will dependent on the meanings w perceive Ihose whQ lead you aslray (=, MT morekha), and your ears will hear the words given to Hebrew ~eSeptuagint gedaka'." passage conceal polemic against the Qumran Moreh? , - . (28) Note the definitic (23) GASTER, Scriplures 3, 6; cf. CROSS, Ancienl Library, 148 n. 82. Diclionary: " ... just, upright, v (24) TEICHER, JJS 2 (1951), 97; HONEYMAN, JJS 4 (1953), 131; cr. JEREMIAS, the divine or the moral law; , Lehrer, 313; LEHMANN, RQ I (1958-59), 400; WEINGREEN, JJS 6 (1961), 171-172 (29) See, for example, I (= From Bible, 1l0-111); M. BURROWS, The Dead Sea Scrolls (New York, 1955), Citium and his teaching activ 144. lQpHab XII, II reads march seqer of Habakkuk 2, 18 as mry iqr. Epicurus. (25) The Vulgate is cited according to the edition of FISCHER, GRIBOMONT, (30) WEINGREEN, JS8 ' SPARKS, THIELE, and WEBER, Biblia Sacra iu:da Vulgalam Versionem (Stuttgart, (31) E.g., Exodus 23,7; 1969). iSaiah 5,23; 29,21; Proverbs (26) Quotation from the Luther Bible taken from i\1, LUTHER, Die ganlze (32) See in partic~lar U lJeilige 8chr;ffl Deudsch: Willenberg 1545 (Munchen, 1972). Teslamenl translated by K. ( THE MEANING OF MOREH $EDEQ 291 saiah 30, 20ff. (22) or Just what does "Teacher of Righteousness" mean? Hosea 10, cs have been made on l2 appears to supply an explanation: it refers to the one qui docebil 'eh seqer (Isaiah 9, l4; vobis iusliliam or "who teaches righteousness to you". But this ~acher", thus aUemp­ answer only restates the question in declarative form; namely, the Issumed opposite. (24) Teacher of Righteousness is one who teaches righteousness. (27) )Ie biblical derivation What indeed is the nature of the "righteousness" communica­ lei of truth, and when ted by a so-called "Teacher of Righteousness"? The terms )herent description of "righteousness" or "righteous" sound a moral ring in Western ears, term. As long as we conjuring up images of pious behavior and. saintly demeanor ew discourse, there is associated with the acceptance of authoritative elhical jc range of the title guidance. (28) Was the Qumran Moreh $edeq merely a wise sage translate this concept concerned to instill a proper appreciation for the distinction 3ssion that misunder­ between virtue and vice among his followers? One hardly thinks so. There is a danger here of confusing the Qumran Moreh $edeq ligate rendering (25) of (and for that matter the rabbinic ~akamim) with the familiar figure ·e. Hosea 10,12 ('ad of the Greek philosophical teacher expounding aphoristic wisdom venerit qui docebil vos to a small circle of disciples. (29) This confusion is the direct result I ha-moreh li~edaqah) of employing words like "righteousness" or "righteous" to describe The latter clause is the character of the Moreh $edeq or the content of his instruction. Lehrer zur gerechtig­ There is furthermore another connotation to the terms t the familiar English "righteousness" or "righteous" that subtly influences the interpre­ tant Western reflexes) tation placed upon these concepts by Christian scholars. It is the ;ourse, the association so-called "forensic" understanding wherein the person who is ,lve instruction, or for pronounced "righteous" (~addlq, o(x.(XtO~) is the one vindicated in a the stem ~dq with the court of law. (30) This usage is of course familiar to us from the emains puzzling is the Hebrew Bible, (31) but it plays a particularly prominent role in the se "Teacher of Righ­ polemic of Paul. (32) Here is not the place to go into the problem he Qumran communi­ of the concept' of "righteousness" or "justification by faith" in Pauline theology. It is invoked only to point out the danger of equating the notions of "righteousness" at Qumran and "righteous­

3 (1961-62) 530. Nole lhal ssage of lhe Masorelic Texl: (27) Compare F. ROSENTHAL, Sedaka, Charily, Hebrew Union College Annual 23 ~nl water, and no longer will : (1950-51), 411-412 n. 4: "Our understanding or the word 'righteousness' is entirely lo you, for your eyes will dependenl on lhe meanings which many centuries of theological inlerprelation have "Our ears will hear the words given lo Hebrew ~eQal!:a: For clarifying the semantic range of ~eQal!:a, lhe slatement those who say: This is lhe that ,~ega~a means righteousness' is aboul as valuable as lo say: .~eglilj;a means efl!" Does lhis Sepluagint sedaka'." . . - . (28) Nole the definition of "righleous" provided by lhe Oxford English ~rary, 148 n. 82. Diclionary: " ... just, upright, virtuous; guiltless, sinless; conforming lo lhe standard of 4 (1953), 131; cr. JEREMIAS, lhe divine or lhe moral law; acting righUy or jusUy; ... morally right or justifiable." DJOGENES LAERTil:s lEN, JJS 6 (1961). 171-172 (29) See, for example, 7.5-31 for anecdotes aboul Zeno of Scrolls (New York, 1955), Citium and his leaching activity; idem, 8.9-46 for Pylhagoras; and idem, 10.9-22 for ,18 as mry sqr. Epicurus. ·n of FISCHER, GRIBOMONT, (30) WEINGREEN, JSS 6 (1961),166 (=From Bible, 104). ralam Versionem (Stultgart, (31) E.g., Exodus 23,7;' Deuteronomy 25,1; 1 Kings 8,32 (=2 Chronicles 6,2.1); Isaiah 5,23; 29,21; Proverbs 17,15; and cr. Genesis 38,26.

}m M. LUTHER, Die ganlze (32) See in particular the discussion ·of R. BULTMANN, The Theology of Ihe,New 2). Teslamen/ translated by K. GROBEL (New York, 1951-1955), pp. 271-285. 292 JOHN C. REEVES THE ness" in Paul, an equation facilitated and, abetted by this identical Aramaic qesot "true' rendering. We need not assume that Qumranic ideology exerted ambiguous with its em any influence upon .the development of Paul's thought, despite the instances. There are ardent attempts of some. scholars to establish such a 3£xbiblical Hebrew ing. The fundamental and rabbinic Hebrew wherein the word comes increasingly to refer cognate Semitic corpus to priestly, halakhic pronouncements. An excellent example of is legitimate, proper, this usage occurs in 2 Chronicles 15,3: ...ulelo' kohen moreh ulelo' 'ecisely this connotation lorah "and there was no law-giving priest and (hence) no n adjectival formations In Lev ilicus 19,36 we lJJehin !jedeq yihyeh lakem hts, a lrue 'efah-measure, (36) Targum Onkelos /,evificus 19,36: mwznwn dgiwl mlglyn dgsw( mkyln dqsw( Iiso Ezekiel 45,10 and' whynyn dgsw( yhwn lkwn; Targum Onkelos Deulerof!Omy 25,15: mlglyn slmyn dqsw! ,0 these biblical passages yhwn lk mkyln slmn dqiw( yhwn Ik. Citations here and elsewhere in this essay of Targum OnkeloB rely' upon A. SPERBER (ed.), The Bible' in Aramaic.. 'volume 1: The the Hebrew !jedeq with Penlaleuch According 10 Targum Onkelos (Leiden, 1959). Compare also Targums Neofili and PSEUDO-JONATHAN to the above verses,. Targum Ezekiel 45, 10: mwznwn dgswi wmkyln dqsw/ wblyn dgiwi yhwn Ik, cited from idem, The Bible in Aramaic... Volume 111: The LaUer Prophels A'ccording 10 Torgum Jonolhan (Leiden, 1962). ' . (37) G. SCHRENK, "8("",to<;," in G. KITTEL (ed.), Theologisches Worlerbuch zum lem, More Light on the Dead Sea Neuen Teslamenl (Sluttgart, 1933-1978), II, cols. 186-187. . The Significance of the Qumran (38) See the discussions of C. H. DODD. The Bible and Ihe Greeks (London. 1935), pp. 42-59 and D. HILL, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings: Siudies in Ihe Semanlics of I. Journal of Biblical Lileralure islian Origins (New York, 1961), Soleriological Terms (Cambridge, 1967), pp. 104-109. volumeediled b.y J, MURPHY- (39) CROSS, Ancienl Library, 113 n. 3; BROWNLEE, Midrash Pesher, 48. (40) The phrase meSial] ha-~edeg probably possesses ltere a polemical edge as it Deriuale des Siammes ~dq im does in later Judaism. Note also the term &v86XP'''Tot in Mark 13,22 (par. Mal/hew ),28-40; 53-59; MEYER, Melchi­ 24,24). ER, Hebriiisches und aramiiisches (41) Cr. MEYER, Melchisedek, pp. 232-235 and in general G. OSTBOBI'>, Tora in II 942, Ihe Old Teslamenl (Lund, 1945), Forms of the hiphil stem (horah) are ollen employed lo connole authoritative direction' delivered by priests regarding rilual or . legal al ~edeq yehiy lakem; Deulerono­ conundrums. See LeuilicuB 10,8-11; 14,54-57; Deuleronomy 17, 1O-1l; 24;8; 33,10; :ah wa~edeg yiyeh lak...and note Ezekiel 44,23; 2 Chronicles 15,3. o'zney ~edeg". 294 JOHN C. REEVES THE M law". (42) An example of this priestly responsibility (sans the that a more accurate n word moreh) is preserved in Haggai 2,11-14 where the prophet is viewed in the light of J commanded to procure a pronouncement of lorah from the Temple probable textual eviden priests. These priests might properly be designated morim or would be along the line "law-givers". (43) Further instances of this refinement of meaning novel understanding of appear in the rabbinic exegesis of Deuleronomy 17,8-13 (a passage anticipated by several concerned with priestly lorah-pronouncements) found in Sifre problem. (46) Their eal Deuteronomy § 155 and Mishnah Sanhedrin 11,2.(44) The latter additional evidence tha passage especially illustrates the use of horah and horayah with the years. It is being rea Ii: meaning of a decision pronounced upon some practical question of factor in the rift betv ritual or legal significance. (45) authorities in ·Jerusale This brief philological excursus enables us to return to the interpreting the ritual designation Moreh $edeq with some fresh insights. It would seem Torah. This should no differences of interpreta1 rabbinic accounts of thel (42) Already cited by WEINGREEN, JSS 6 (1961), 171 (=From Bible, of disputes is the questic 110). Note that in Wayyiqra' Rabba 19,5 kohen moreh is interpreted as the high priesthood and lorah as the decisions of the Sanhedrin. The priestly office of the the pronouncement of a Morch $edeq is assured from 4QpPs37 111,15; cf. lQpHab 11,8. title Moreh $edeq or "1 (43) Following ABRAHAM IBN EZRA in his commentary upon Haggai 2, II: Qumran sect to possess hakohanim hem nwrey ha-lorah. null and void. (44) Cited in D. W. HALIVNI, Midrash, Mishnah, and Gemara (Cambridge, Mass., 1986), 139 n. 16. Sifre Deuleronomy § 155: "'And (if) someone acts The most importan presumptuously' (DeuI17,12); (that is), he does not hearken to the decision of the law­ tanding of the title Mor, court or its ruling(morah). 'someone acts'; (that is), for an action he is guilty of Scroll, (48) or as B. Z. , trespass, but he is not guilty if he delivers an (erroneous) judicial ruling llQTorah (henceforth 11 (horayah)." (FINKELSTEIN, 207). (45) M. Sanhedrin 11,2: "The elder who rebels against the ruling of the court, as instances of interpretat it is written 'U there arises a case too difficult for you to judge... ' '(Deul 17,8­ later came to be view, 13). There were three law-courts there (Jerusalem): one sat at the gate of the Temple cannot decide with ceri Mount, one sat at the gate of the Temple Courtyard, and one sat in the Chamber of llQT is to be attribute{ Hewn Stone. They (i.e., local judges) would come to that (court) situated at the gate of the Temple Mount and say: Thusly have I interpreted and thusly have my nature of the interpn colleagues interpreted; thusly have 1 taught and thusly have my colleagues implies the activity ( taught. If they (the sitting court) had heard (a pertinent halakah from their pronouncement of au teachers) they communicated it; but if not, they would come to those (judges) who sat statement can be found at the gate of the Temple Courtyard and say: Thusly have I interpreted and thusly have my colleagues interpreted; thusly have I taught and thusly have my colleagues taught. If (this court) had heard (a pertinent halakah), they communicated (it) to them; but if not, they both came to the great law-court in the Chamber of Hewn Stone, from where lorah goes forth for all Israel, as it is written 'from that place which (46). Notably GINZBERG. the Lord will choose' (Deul 17,10). (If) he (3 local judge) returns to his city and The Calendar Reckoning of lhe teaches and instructs in accordance with how he formerly taught, he is innocent (of (1958), 163; WEINGREEN, JSS being a rebellious elder), but if he rules (horah) that one must act in accordance (with Scriplures', xii, 555. Cornpar his teaching), he is guilty (of being a rebellious elder), as it is written 'if someone acts presented by A. PAUL, Ecrils . presumptuously .. .' (Deul 17,12). He is not guilty (of this transgressioTl) unless he (Paris, 1969), 125. rules (horah) that action is in accordance with his teaching. A student who rules (47) Convenienllyassem (horah) regarding proper action is innocent of transgression; his severe offense entails 317. leniency." Compare LEHMANN, RQ 1 (195~-59), 400; HALlVNI, Midrash, 139 n. (48) Y. Y ADIN, Megillal .16. The rabbinic use of horah and its derivatives was already stressed by Temple Scroll (Jerusalem, 19E WEINGREEN, JSS 6 (1961), 172 (= From Bible, Ill). Note that horah is translated by (49) B. Z. WACHOLDEII, vo!'-o6''''£«l "ordain, enact laws" in LXX Exodus 24,12; Deuleronomy 17,10; Psalm (50) Examples are supp 25,8, 12; 27,11; 84,6; 119,33, 102, 104; cr. also 2 Maccabees 3,15 and 4 Maccabees of Seclarian Halakah, RQ 9 (H 5,2.'). See especially LXX M ieah 3, 11, where horah is rendered by octtOKp(VO!'-"', "give (1978), 115-119. a verdict" THE MEANING OF MOREH ~EDEQ 295

iponsibility (sans the that a more accurate rendering of the phrase Moreh ~edeq when where the prophet is viewed in the light of both the philological possibilities and the torah from the Temple probable textual evidence which remains of this figure's function designated morim or would be along the lines of "True Lawgiver". This is hardly a refinement of meaning novel und'erstanding of the significance of the title. It has been my 17,8-13 (a passage anticipated by several scholars who have wrestled with this ents) found in Sifre problem. (46) Their earlier analyses can now be bolstered with 11,2.(44) The latter additional evidence that has accumulated over the past several . and horayah with the years. It is being realized, with increasing clarity, that a central e practical question of factor in the rift between the Qumran sect and the priestly authorities in Jerusalem was an irreconcilable divergence in 3 us to return to the interpreting the ritual prescriptions contained in the Mosaic ights. It would seem Torah. This should not surprise us, as we find the same sort of differences of interpretation among Pharisees and Sadducees in the rabbinic accounts of their controversies. (47) Common to both sets 1961), 171 (= From Bible, of disputes is the question of authority, in that one group's claim to h is interpreted as the high . The priestly office of the the pronouncement of authoritative halakah is being denied. The ab II,8. title Moreh ~edeq or "True Lawgiver" embodies the claim of the nentary upon Haggai 2,11: Qumran sect to possess the authority to render competing rulings null and void, ~, and Gemara (Cambridge, " 'And (if) someone acts The most important textual evidence for this revised unders­ :en to the decision of the law­ tanding of the title Moreh ~edeq is provided in the so-called Temple for an action he is guilty of Scroll, (48) or as B, Z. WACHOLDER (49) has aptly rechristened it, (erroneous) judicial ruling llQTorah (henceforth llQT). This composition provides numerous nst the ruling of the court, as instances of interpretations and rulings which diverge from what you to judge.. .' (Deul 17,8­ later came to' be viewed as normative halakah. (50) While one sat at the gate of the Temple cannot decide with certainty whether the physical authorship of Id one sat in the Chamber of llQT is to be attributed to the Moreh ~edeq! one can say that the at (court) situated at the gaLe )reted and thusly have my nature of the interpretations contained within the document thusly' have illy colleagues implies the activity of a person or persons engaged in the ertinent halakah from their pronouncement of authoritative law, Corroboration for this orne to those (j udges) who saL statement can be found in the very structure of llQT itself., The ,ave I interpreted and thusly ld thusly have my colleagues ,), they communicated (it) to 1fL in the' Chamber of Hewn {ritten 'from that place which (46).Notably GINZBERG, Sekle, pp. 299-317 (=Secl, pp. 209-222); S. TALMON, 'dge) returns to his city and The Calendar Reckoning of Ihe Sect from the Judaean Deserl, Scripla Hierosolymilana 4 rly taught, he is innocent (of (1958), 163; WEINGREEN, JSS 6 (1961), 162-174 (= From Bible, pp. 100-114); GASTER, must act in accordance (with Scriplures·, xii, 555. Compare also the role of the moreh ~edeq in Karaile ideology as ; it is wrilten 'if someone acts presented by A. PAUL, Ecrils de Qumran el sec/es juives aua: premiers sieeles de l'Islam lhis transgression) unless he (Paris, 1969), 125. ching. A student who rules (47) Conveniently assembled in J. LE MOYNE, Les Sadduceens (Paris, 1972), 177­ lion; his severe offense entails . 317. ; HALIVNI, Midrash, 139 n. (48) Y. YADIN, Megillal hammiqdash (Jerusalem, 1977); English translation The '5 was already stressed by Temple Scroll (Jerusalem, 1983). . )le that horah is lranslaled by (49) B. Z. WAOIOLDER, The Dawn of Qumran (Cincinnati, 1983). ~; Deuleronomy 17, 10; Psalm (50) Examples are supplied by M. R L&HMANN, The Temple Scroll as a Source ccabees 3, 15 and ·4 Maccabees of Sec/arian Halakah, RQ 9 (1977-78), 579-587; J. MILGROM, The Temple.Scroll, BA 41 'rendered by &'7tOxP(vOfL"" "give (1978), 115-119. . 296 JOHN C. REEVES I THE MI text purports to be an authentic revelation of God to Moses· torah (4QMMT).(57) Ai delivered in the setting supplied by Exodus 34. (51) It is thus a was sent possibly by the Torah (one is tempted to say the Torah) revealed to Moses on Sinai, Jerusalem. The epistle and it partakes of the venerable authority accorded to the regarding which the Qum "traditional" Pentateuch by the remainder of the Sages. This differed, all of which wen claim to the Mosaic imprimalur grants to the contents of llQT an seen to revolve around impeccable authority. The Moreh ~edeq, if indeed he is the one responsible for exercisin responsible for this fiction, could be said to be transmitting halakhol author of this epistle, he lemoseh missinay. (52) described in our revised 1 One might go further and point out that by invoking the namely, giving "true le€ Mosaic mantle the Moreh ~edeq implicitly assumes the role of a External evidence "second Moses". This ern ployment of a Moses typology, probably question of viewing the I based upon Deuteronomy 18,15-18, has often been remarked both in sect. In the descriptic the Qumran texts and in secondary literature. (53) It is interesting Essenes in his Bellum that the name Moseh does not occur in the surviving lines of llQT; ~'Iawgiver" (vo(loOE:TI)c;) w in fact, the only sure reference is the elliptical allusion to "Aaron blaspheme. (58) Many! your brother" in Column XLIV. (54) Could not this be another as an indication of .the r means of increasing the identification of Moses and the new the sect. (59) This pro "lawgiver" by supplying some ambiguity as to the recipient of the similar prohibition agai revelation? At one level it is indeed Moses who is addressed in the while the name of God familiar Pentateuchal.style, but on another level it is conceivably available to us (i.e., 1 the Moreh ~edeq who is entrusted with the promulgation of llQT, ·compositions masquerac either as the. original recipient or as the trustee of a Mosaic usually represented by I autograph (CD V, 4-5). (55) accorded this same tre. Other sectarian' writings support the conception of the Moreh basis of this parallel wh{ ~edeq as one who pronounces authoritative law. (56) The most traditional Jewish lawg important example remains as yet unpublished. J. STRUGNELL and E. QIMRON have announced the existence of a so-called "halakhic epistle" tentatively designated 4QMiqlial ma'asey ha­ (57) E. QIMRON - J. 5TR Israel Museum Journal 4 (19l Qumran, in Biblical ArchaeQlo~ from the epislle are I'eprodu{ (51) See llQT II, 1-15 and lhe commenLary of YADlN; also WACHOLDER, Dawn, (Allanta, 1986). pp. 1-32. (58) Bellum 2.145; cr. '2 (52) On this category of legislation see J. D. EISENSTEIN (ed.), O/zar Yisrael (59) Primarily on the (New York, 1951), IV,pp. /48-151; En~iqlQpedyah Talmudil (Jerusalem,1947- ), EusEBIUs, Praep. Ev. 8.11 VIII, cols. 365-387; W. BACHER, Salzung vom Sinai, in Siudies in Jewish Lilera/ure Essenes. Nole I. LEVY, La Issued in Honor of Kaufmann Kohler (Berlin, 1913), pp. 56-70 (which is substantially 279: "Ce l!\gislaleur est ; reproduced' in idem, Tradition und Tradenlen in den Schulen Paliislinas und H. GRESSMANN; pie Religion Babyloniens [Leipzig, 1914], pp. 33-46). 19263), pp. 462-463; H. J. :: (53) H. J. SCHOEPS, Urgemeinde - Judenchrislenlum Gnosis (Tubingen, (Tubingen, 1949), 253 (modifi 1956), 77-78; BLACK, Chrislian Origins, 159; DUPONT-SOMMER, Les eerils essimiens, The Discipline in lhe So-Call 374-375 (= Essene Writings, 363). ' M. DELCOR, Conlribulion al' e . (54) llQTXLIV, 5 : lbny 'hrwn 'I;ykh. RB 61 (1954), 550-553; (55) On Lhe laller possibility cr. B. Z. WACHOLDER, The "Sealed" Torah versus O. BAUERNFEIND (eds.), Fla . the "Revealed" Torah: An Exegesis of Damascus Covenanl V, 1-6 and Jeremiah 32,10-14, (Munchen, 1957-1972), 1,437 RQ 12 (1986), 351-368. hip (1937-1980) (Berlin, 1984 a (56) E.g., lexls like CD IX-XVI; 4Q159; 4Q512-514; 4QHalakah ; 4QTeharol. Cf. (60) A. DUPONT-SOMM also MILIK, Dix ans, 36. Morle (Paris, 1950), 1\1-112 THE MEANING OF MOREH $EDEQ 297 lation of God to Moses torah (4QMMT). (57) According to these editors, it is a letter that dus 34.(51) It is thus a was sent possibly by the Moreh $edeq to the priestly authorities in :vealed to Moses on Sinai, . Jerusalem. The epistle recounts approximately twenty matters hority accorded to the regarding which the Qumran community and the Jerusalem leaders lder of the Sages. This differed, all of which were of a ritual nature. Again the question is , the contents of llQT an seen to revolve around the issue of authority and the 'persons , if indeed he is the one responsible for exercising it. If the Moreh $edeq is indeed the ) be transmitting halakhol author of this epistle, he can be observed here exercising the office described in our revised understanding of the concept Moreh $edeq; lt that by invoking the namely, giving "true legal decisions". . ly assumes the role of a External evidence may also be brought to bear upon the Moses typology, probably question of viewing the Moreh $edeq as the "True Lawgiver" of the en been remarked both in sect. In the description by JOSEPHUS of the customs of the ure. (53) It is interesting Essenes in his Bellum J udaicum there is ·reference made to a e surviving lines of llQT; "lawgiver" (\l0J.L00tT't)C;) whose name the Essenes were forbidden to ptical allusion to "Aaron blaspheme. (58) Many scholars interpret this curious prohibition Quid not this be another as an indication of the respect accorded Moses by the members of of Moses and the new the sect. (59) This proscription is joined by JOSEPHUS with a as to the recipient of the similar prohibition against blaspheming the name of God. Now ~s who is addressed in the while the name of God is avoided in the sectarian compositions ler level it is conceivably, available to us (i.e., apart from copies of biblical texts and Ie promulgation of llQT, compositions masquerading as biblical texts such as llQT), being ~he trustee of a Mosaic usually represented by the innocuous 'el, the name of Moses is not accorded this same treatment. One must then question on the conception of the Moreh basis of this parallel whether the word vOJ.Lo(lh't)<; in fact refers to the tive law. (56) The most traditional Jewish lawgiver. A: DUPONT-SOMMER (60) has expres­ ublished. J. STRUGNELL existence of a. so-called d 4QMiq~al ma'asey ha- (57) E. QIMRON-J. STRUGNELL, An Unpublished Halakhic Leller from Qumran, Israel Museum Journal 4 (1985). 9-12; IDEM, An Unpublished Halakhic Leller from Qumran, in Biblical Archaeology Today (Jerusalem, I985}. pp. 400-407. Some phrases from the epistle are reproduced in E. QIMRON, The Hebrew of Ihe Dead Sea Scrolls YADIN; also W ACHOLDER. Dawn} (ALlanta, 1986). (58) Bellum 2.145; cf. 2.152. EISENSTEIN (Old.}, Olzar Yisrael (59) Primarily on the basis or the statement in PHILO, Hypolhelica Japud Talmudil (Jerusalem,1947- }, EUSEBIUS, Praep. ED: S.Il.I} which asserts that "our lawgiver" trained the , in Siudies in Jewish Lileralure Essenes. Note I. LEVY, La tegende de Pylhagore de Grece en Pales line (Paris, 1927), JP· 56-70 (which is substantially 279: .Ce legislateur est sans aueUI! doute Moise." See also \V. BOUSSET­ 1 den Schulen Paliislinas und H. GRESSMANN, Die Religion des Judenlums im spiilhellenislisches Zeilaller (Tubingen, 1926'}, pp ..462-463; H. J. SCHOEPS, Theologie und Geschichle des Judenchrislenlums -islenlum - Gnosis (Tubingen, (Tubingen, 1949),253 (modified someWhat in idem. Urgemeinde, is}; S. LIEBERMAN, 'T-SOMMER, Les ecrils esseniens, The Discipline iil.lhe So-Called Dead Sea Manual of Discipline, JBL 71 (1952),205; M. DELcoR, Conlribulion a I'Mude de fa legislalion des sec/aires de Damas el de Qumran, RB 61 (1954), 550-553; BURROWS, Dead Sea Scrolls, 281; O. MICHEL­ .DER, The "Sealed" Torah versus O. BAUERNFEIND (eds.}, Flavius Josephus, De Bello Judaico Der judische Krieg wi V, 1-6 and Jeremiah 32,10-14, (Munchen, 1957-1972), 1,437 n. 70; L. H. FELDMAN, Josephus and Modern Scholars­ hip (1937-1980) (Berlin, 1984), 624. a ·514; 4QHalakah ; 4Q'feharol. Cr. (60) A. DUPONT-SOMMER, Aper~us priJliminaires sur les manuscrils de la Mer Marie (Paris, 1950), 111-112 (= idem, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Preliminary Survey 298 JOHN C. REEVES sed the opInIOn that the vOfloBih'1)<; of this passage refers to the particular "lawgiver" of the sect, the Moreh $edeq. In light of our preceding discussion it would appear that this suggestion has some meriL JOSEPHUS does on occasion apply the designation to figures other than Moses. (61) It is even possible that the term VOfloBE:T1)<; is intended to allude to the word moreh in the title Moreh $edeq. Aside from such speculation, it is clear that the term VOfloBE:T1J<;, as applied to the Essenes, coheres nicely with the concept Moreh $edeq as outlined in this essay. In conclusion, we summarize here the main points of our discussion. 1) The. translations "Teacher of Righteousness", "Righteous Teacher", and their Western language reflexes for the Hebrew phrase Moreh $edeq, while philologically permissable, result in misleading and even erroneous conclusions about the nature of this figure, due to the popular ethical and Christian theological understandings of the words "righteousness" and "righteous". 2) By contrast, viewing the Moreh $edeq as the "True Lawgiver" of the Qumran sect is both philologically possible and functionally meaningful. Certain of the later Qumran finds, unavailable to the earliest scholars, demonstrate the wide-ranging halakhic disputes that divided the sect from the Jerusalem establishment. The existence of llQT, 4QMMT, and other legal texts from Qumran embody the activity of one who pronounced authoritative decisions; that is, the Moreh $edeq or "True Lawgiver". John C. REEVES.

Lrans. by E. M. ROWLEY [Oxford, 1952],91); idem, Les ecrilsessimiens; 369 (= Essene . Wrilings, 358). See also K. KESSLER, Mani: Forschungen iiber die manichiiische Religion (Berlin, 1889), XVI n. I. I have been unable Lo consulL G. LINDESIlOG, "Esseerna och KrisLendomen," Anna/es Academiae Regiae Scienliarum Upsaliensis ;) (i961), 103-147. (61) Anliquilies 1.22 (pagan lawgivers); Con/ra Apionem 2.154 (pagan lawgi­ vers); 2.161 (Minos and oLher pagans); 2.172 (pagan lawgivers);' 2.175 (pagan lawgivers); 2.225 (LYCURGUS): 2.239 (pagans); 2.250 (pagans); 2.276 (pagans); 2.280 (pagans). . ISSN 0035-1725 ~e.lfut De [fJUrnQ/-1n

NUMEROS 49-52 . TOME 13 OCTOBRE 1988 FASCICULES 1-4

MEMORIAL JEAN CARMIGNAC

ETUDES QUMRANIENNES

EDITEES PAR

I Florentino GARCIA MARTINEZ et Emile PUECH

PUBLIE AVEC LE CONCOURS DU CENTRE NATIONAL DE LA RECHERCHE SCIENTIFIQUB ·1

GABALDA IS, rue Pierre et Marie Curie, 75005 Paris